Federal Communications CommissionDA 04-1538
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.20554
In the Matter ofAmericatel Corporation and Telecom Italia of
North America, Inc.
Application to Modify Regulatory Classification
From Dominant to Non-Dominant on the U.S.- Brazil Route / )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) / File Nos. ITC-MOD-20020508-00243 and ITC-MOD-20020508-00244
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: May 27, 2004 Released: May 27, 2004
By the Chief, International Bureau:
I.Introduction
1.In this Order, we grant the request of Americatel Corporation (“Americatel”) and Telecom Italia of North America, Inc. (“TINA”) (together “Applicants”) to modify their regulatory classification from dominant to non-dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route.[1] We find, however, that Applicants have failed to show that Brasil Telecom (“Brasil Telecom”) has less than 50 percent market share in the local access market, or that Brasil Telecom otherwise lacks market power in the local access market. Accordingly, we deny the Applicants’ request that Brasil Telecom S.A. be removed from the Commission’s List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets.[2]
II.BACKGROUND
2.In the Foreign Participation Order,[3] the Commission established a framework to encourage competitive entry into the U.S. telecommunications market, in fulfillment of the United States’ commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement.[4] The Commission expressed concern, however, that a foreign carrier with market power[5] in an input market[6] on the foreign end of a U.S. international route has the ability to “leverage” that market power into the U.S. market for international telecommunications services, i.e., use market power in its home market to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market, thereby harming U.S. consumers.[7] Firms with market power in an “upstream” input market can engage in discrimination in a “downstream” market by favoring one downstream entity at the expense of its competitors.[8] Where the upstream firm possesses market power, downstream competitors have few, if any, alternatives for the inputs that the upstream firm provides.[9] In order to complete a U.S. international call, a U.S. carrier must obtain as inputs various call termination services from foreign carriers in the destination country of the U.S. call, including international transport services, inter-city services within the destination country, and terminating access services within the local exchange of the called party.[10] A foreign carrier with market power in these input markets could favor one U.S. international carrier at the expense of its rivals by denying rivals access to these crucial termination services, or by providing the services at non-competitive prices or inferior service quality levels.[11] The ultimate effect of such discrimination would be to affect adversely competition in the U.S. international services market and harm U.S. consumers.[12]
3.The Commission found that an ownership affiliation between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier creates a heightened ability and incentive to engage in anti-competitive behavior.[13] Accordingly, the Commission adopted certain safeguards to ensure that U.S. affiliates of foreign carriers with market power on the foreign end of the route do not harm competition in the United States. Under the Commission’s rules, a U.S. carrier that is affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power on the foreign end of a route is presumptively classified as dominant for the provision of international telecommunications services on that route (with limited exceptions).[14] U.S. international carriers classified as dominant on a particular route are subject to certain requirements to safeguard competition.[15] These requirements include separation requirements,[16] reporting requirements,[17] and certain conditions related to benchmark settlement rates.[18] Reclassification as non-dominant relieves a U.S. carrier of these requirements.
4.The Commission also found that a foreign carrier with market power can act anti-competitively with respect to the U.S. market even in the absence of a U.S. affiliate (e.g., through a contractual agreement with a U.S. carrier).[19] Accordingly, the Commission established several competitive safeguards with which all U.S. international carriers must comply when providing international telecommunications services that terminate on the network of a foreign carrier with market power on the foreign end of a U.S. international route. These safeguards include the “No Special Concessions” rule,[20] contract filing requirements,[21] the international settlements policy (“ISP”),[22] and requirements regarding the provision of switched services over private lines.[23] Similarly, the Commission also has established competitive safeguards that apply to U.S. cable landing licensees when connecting with the network of a foreign carrier with market power on the foreign end of the U.S. international route.[24] The Commission’s Foreign Carriers List identifies those foreign carriers with which exchange of traffic is subject to the requirements described above.[25] Removal of a foreign carrier from the Foreign Carriers List relieves U.S.-authorized carriers with which it corresponds of these requirements.
III.THE APPLICATIONS
5.Americatel and TINA are authorized to provide U.S. international telecommunications services pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[26] Telecom Italia, S.p.A controls Americatel and TINA (through majority ownership of intervening subsidiaries) and has an ownership share of Brasil Telecom. Americatel and TINA are each classified as dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route pursuant to Section 63.10(a) of the rules.[27] As an incumbent local exchange carrier in Brazil, Brasil Telecom is included in the List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets.[28]
6.On May 8, 2002, the Applicants filed a request[29] to modify their regulatory classification from dominant to non-dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route and to have Brasil Telecom removed from the Commission’s Foreign Carriers List. The Applicants explain that in 1998, the state-owned telephone monopoly, Telecomunicaçoes Brasilieras S.A. (“Telebras”) was successfully privatized. The privatization resulted in the break-up of Telebras into twelve companies, which consisted of: (1) three local fixed-line operators (currently, Telemar, Brasil Telecom, and Telefónica), each providing local and intra-regional long distance services in one of three regions into which Brazil had been divided for purposes of fixed-line telecommunications; (2) a long distance operator (Empresa Brasiliera de Telecomunicaçoes S.A. (“Embratel”)), providing, throughout the entire territory of Brazil (known as Region IV), domestic intra-regional and inter-regional long distance telecommunications service and international long distance telecommunications service; and (3) eight cellular operators, each operating in one of the eight regions into which Brazil has been divided for purposes of cellular telecommunications services.[30]
7.According to the Applicants, the three local fixed line operators (together, the “Concessionaires”) were sold to private consortia, most of which are controlled by local investment banks, pension funds and foreign telecommunications carriers.[31] Under Brazil’s General Plan of Concessions and Licenses, Brasil Telecom was the privatized local and intra-regional long distance carrier for Region II, and was sold to a consortium consisting of the Brazilian investment bank Opportunity, Telecom Italia S.p.A. and a Brazilian pension fund.[32] Following privatization, the Brazilian government authorized the entrance of an additional carrier into each fixed-line region (together, the “mirror companies”) to compete directly with each Concessionaire. In Region II, Brasil Telecom’s mirror company is Global Village Telecom Ltda. (“Global Village Telecom”), which began its operations in December 2000.[33] Additionally, Applicants state that now an unlimited number of operators have the opportunity (i.e., are eligible to apply for licenses) to compete directly against Brasil Telecom in Region II.[34] The Applicants, however, assert that Brasil Telecom is prohibited from offering inter-regional and international long distance service within Region II and from offering any type of fixed service outside Region II until December 31, 2003, unless it complies with certain coverage requirements[35] prior to that date.[36]
8.The Applicants argue that they should be re-classified as non-dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route because they are no longer affiliated with Brasil Telecom within the meaning of Section 63.09 of our rules. In support, on November 18, 2002, Applicants filed an amendment stating that Telecom Italia S.p.A., which previously held an indirect 37.29 percent interest in Solpart Participações S.A. (“Solpart”), the indirect parent of Brasil Telecom,[37] reduced its stake in the ordinary share capital of Solpart from 37.29 percent to 19 percent. The Applicants assert that Telecom Italia now holds less than 25 percent of the ordinary share capital of Solpart, and that Telecom Italia does not control Brasil Telecom. Hence, according to the Applicants, Telecom Italia, and thus Americatel and TINA, are no longer “affiliated” with Brasil Telecom under Section 63.09 of the Commission’s rules. Accordingly, the Applicants request that the Commission modify their regulatory status from dominant to non-dominant for the provision of international services on the U.S.–Brazil route pursuant to Section 63.10(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules.[38]
9.The Applicants also argue that Brasil Telecom lacks sufficient market power on the foreign end of the U.S.-Brazil route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market and that, consequently, the Applicants should be re-classified as non-dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route, and Brasil Telecom should be removed from the Commission's Foreign Carriers List.[39] In support of their argument, the Applicants claim that Brasil Telecom has less than 50 percent market share of the local access and international transport markets on the foreign end of the route and, therefore, under the Commission’s rules, presumptively lacks sufficient market power on the foreign end of the route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.[40] The Applicants also argue that under a full economic analysis of market power, in which market share is just one factor, Brasil Telecom does not have market power on the foreign end of the route.[41]
10. The International Bureau placed the Application on public notice.[42] AT&T Corp. (AT&T) and WorldCom, Inc. (now MCI) filed oppositions to the Application.[43] AT&T and MCI argue that Brasil Telecom’s monopoly control of its franchise region remains intact and, therefore, the Application should be denied.[44] AT&T and MCI contend that the Applicants have provided no evidence that Brasil Telecom has less than 50 percent market share in the relevant international transport and local access markets on the foreign end of the U.S.-Brazil route.[45] According to AT&T and MCI, the Applicants’ assertion that Brasil Telecom has less than 50 percent market share in the local access market is based on an erroneous assumption that the relevant geographic market for measuring Brasil Telecom’s local access market share is the entire country of Brazil rather than Brasil Telecom’s local franchise area.[46] AT&T and MCI also assert that the Applicants have not shown any other basis for finding that Brasil Telecom lacks market power on the foreign end of the U.S.-Brazil route.[47]
11.The Applicants filed a reply to the oppositions of AT&T and MCI,[48] and the parties made ex parte presentations.[49] In their reply, the Applicants argue that they have correctly identified the relevant geographic market for local access services as the entire country of Brazil.[50] The Applicants further argue that they have provided information sufficient to show that Brasil Telecom controls less than 50 percent of the relevant markets in Brazil.[51] The Applicants also argue that Brasil Telecom lacks sufficient market power to be able to affect competition adversely on the U.S.-Brazil route because of pro-competitive conditions in Brazil’s telecommunications sector.[52]
IV.DISCUSSION
12.We find that the Applicants have demonstrated that they should be reclassified as non-dominant carriers on the U.S.-Brazil route because Brasil Telecom is no longer affiliated with the Applicants, as the term is defined by Section 63.09(e) of the Commission’s rules.[53] The Commission’s rules provide that “a U.S. carrier that has no affiliation with, and that itself is not, a foreign carrier in a particular country to which it provides service (i.e., a destination country) shall presumptively be considered non-dominant for the provision of international communications services on that route.”[54] The rules also provide that “[t]wo entities are affiliated with each other if one of them, or an entity that controls one of them, directly or indirectly owns more that 25 percent of the capital stock of, or controls, the other one.”[55]
13.The Applicants have stated that Telecom Italia, through its subsidiary STET Netherlands N.V., has recently reduced its stake in the ordinary share capital of Solpart, the indirect parent of Brasil Telecom, from 37.29 percent to 19 percent.[56] Telecom Italia now holds less than 25 percent of the ordinary share capital of Solpart, and there is no information in the record that Telecom Italia controls Brasil Telecom. Accordingly, we find that Americatel and TINA are no longer “affiliated,” within the meaning of Section 63.09(e) of the Commission’s rules, with Brasil Telecom and that Applicants should be reclassified as non-dominant on the U.S.-Brazil route.[57]
14.We find, however, that the Applicants have not demonstrated that Brasil Telecom should be removed from the Foreign Carriers List. As discussed below, the Applicants fail to show that Brasil Telecom has less than 50 percent market share in the local access market on the foreign end of the U.S-Brazil route or that Brasil Telecom nevertheless lacks sufficient market power in the local access market to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market for telecommunications services to Brazil. Such a demonstration is required by the Commission’s rules for removal of a foreign carrier from the Foreign Carriers List (and reclassification of its U.S. affiliates as non-dominant on the route for which the foreign carrier was listed).[58] Because the Applicants’ failure to make such a demonstration is by itself fatal to their petition, we need not evaluate whether Brasil Telecom lacks market power in any of the other markets necessary for the termination of U.S. international services (e.g., the international transport market).
15.Under section 43.51 of the Commission’s rules[59] a party seeking to remove a foreign carrier from the Commission’s Foreign Carriers List bears the burden of submitting information to the Commission sufficient to demonstrate either that the foreign carrier on the Foreign Carriers List lacks 50 percent market share in the international transport and local access markets on the foreign end of the route served by the foreign carrier or that the foreign carrier nevertheless lacks sufficient market power on the foreign end of the route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.[60] The Commission reviews the latter showing under an “appropriate economic analysis of market power,” discussed in detail below.[61] The input markets that are relevant to examining market power on the foreign end of a U.S. international route are the markets that involve services or facilities on the foreign end that are necessary for the provision of U.S. international services and include: (1) international transport facilities or services; (2) inter-city facilities or services; and (3) local access facilities or services.[62]
16.In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission recognized that “for purposes of identifying the relevant geographic market for inter-city services and local access facilities, it may be appropriate in some instances to examine a discrete geographic region rather than the national market of a foreign country."[63] Although the Foreign Participation Order does not identify the circumstances in which examination of a discrete geographic region would be appropriate, the International Bureau has held that if a local franchise area[64] generates a significant share of international traffic,[65] then the local franchise area is the relevant geographic market for purposes of determining whether a carrier possesses sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the United States.[66] For example, in Telecom Argentina, the International Bureau determined that Telecom Argentina’s local franchise area was the relevant geographic market for purposes of determining whether it possessed sufficient market power in the provision of local access services and facilities in Argentina to affect competition adversely in the United States.[67] Having defined the relevant geographic market as Telecom Argentina’s local franchise area, the Bureau found that Telecom Argentina had sufficient market power on the foreign end of the U.S.-Argentina route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.[68] In Bell Canada, the International Bureau determined that Bell Canada's local franchise area, which included Canada's two largest provinces and generated more than 60 percent of Canada's international traffic, was the relevant geographic market for purposes of determining whether Bell Canada possessed sufficient market power in Canada to affect competition adversely in the United States.[69] We found that Bell Canada had the ability to discriminate against and among U.S. carriers seeking to terminate traffic in Canada as a result of its near ubiquitous control of access to end-users in its franchise area.[70] In Cable & Wireless - China, the Telecommunications Division of the International Bureau examined the market power of Cable and Wireless Inc.'s affiliate, Shenda Telephone Company, in a single region that generated a significant portion of China's international traffic, in determining whether Cable and Wireless, Inc. should be subject to dominant carrier safeguards on the U.S.-China route.[71] The Telecommunications Division found that Shenda’s dominant position in a market that generates a significant portion of China’s international traffic was one of several factors indicating a substantial risk to competition.[72]
17.The Applicants contend that the relevant local access market is the "entire country of Brazil, not Brasil Telecom’s former service area."[73] According to the Applicants, the
identification of the local access market as a discrete geographic region rather than the entire foreign country is an exception applied only under unique circumstances rather than the general rule.[74] Contrary to the Applicants’ assertions, the decisions in these cases are not exceptional. In all cases subsequent to the adoption of the Foreign Participation Order (in which relevant markets are defined) in which the foreign operator’s local franchise area has comprised a discrete geographic region rather than the entire foreign country, the International Bureau and the Telecommunications Division have found that the local franchise area is the relevant geographic market for local access services.[75]